It is a pleasant change to see the insurance industry take science seriously. The only thing that would be better is if US insurance companies could pressure the current anti-science administration to take this problem as seriously as the experts.
I have a good friend Pat with whom I\’ve shared the same phrase many a time – Pat, if that\’s you, shoot landshark an email
Your use of the phrase Kool-Aid (and the implied oblique reference to the Jonestown tragedy) are welcome, but I ask you to consider carefully what you\’re saying – it may not me me that\’s got a mug full.
Science is supposed to be about discourse and argument. It\’s supposed to be about making decisions based on information gained from the results of experimentation (experimentation that can be repeated, with similar results). Too often in our society, those goals get subordinated to political agendas. It may be the political agenda of the corporations (usually attributed to \”the Right\”) is doing the subordinating. But equally possible is that the political agenda of \”the Left\” is doing the subordinating. My suggestion is that rather than simply accepting one view, that global warming caused by CO2 emissions is going to crush the planet, we continually challenge what we know, and accept that the potential for global warming, and our impact on it, needs more research. There\’s still a lot of work that needs to be done before we divert resources from improving people\’s lives to preventing what may or may not be a calamity.
Our history as a species is replete with examples of how, with the best of intentions, we have changed or interfered with nature to our peril. The ban on DDT is a good example – for a questionable gain in human propsperity, we have doomed literally millions to death in Africa: malaria has gone from being almost eradicated to killing millions each year dueto malaria. I for one would like to make sure we have the science straight before we commit a similar error.
I invite discussion rather than try to stifle it – personally, I think that\’s a better solution than going off half-cocked. You may diagree.
Dave, This is agenda driven science, pure and simple. Give me an objective and meaningful scientific study and I\’m on board with you-otherwise, quit the Euro-whiny \”America is the bad guy and ruining the world and heating up the planet and causing all the suffering…\” bull$#@& OK?
Hey genius, what caused global temps to rise 133,000 years ago? Only a dope would belive that humans can affect the temperature of the planet, and only a democrat dope would try to shoehorn Bush into the argument.
Mt. Pinatubo put more garbage and \”greenhouse gasses\” into the atmosphere in one eruption than all human activity in history, and the world didn\’t come to an end. The world will only come to an end if Al Gore ever gets elected president.
If President Bush is \”anti-science\” for not caving into the Red/Green b@*$#&#t then so be it.
I\’m glad to see research continues, but I wish there were more emphasis on understanding the impacts using methods other than \”models\”, which, however \”powerful\” (as this author writes), are notoriously prone to assumption bias. I\’m not going to slam this article quite as hard as Dave does, but I do express caution and skepticism about this report, and question if the methods used really provide a lot of evidence supporting the global warming theory.
The world is beoming increasingly full of well-intentioned people with bad information, and that\’s a dangerous combination. Science relies on us continuing to approach theories with healthy skepticism, and I\’m worried that skepticism is being drowned in a sea of voices crying out warnings based on incomplete research.
For an excellent piece of fiction that will really make you think, check out Michael Crichton\’s latest book, State of Fear, and his essay, here:
actually the estimate for sea level rise given in the article are quite conservative and will likely prove to underestimate by a substantial margin what will happen. Current estimates rely too heavity on the assumption that increased deposition of water vapor will off set ice edge margin melting in the polar ice sheets. From everything I can discern we are in for greatest challenge as a species. Simply one can not release this gas here. Doing so will quickly change this into a different world.
The Arctic ice cap is thicker now than it was ten years ago.
Human activity does not contribute to global warming. What caused previous warming and cooling trends like the beginning and ending of ice ages?!?!? If the sun\’s temperature goes up or down by a few degrees it could result in an ice age or a warming trend, but we can do literally nothing to conpare with that, or with volcanic activity.
They can\’t even predict what the weather will be like next month, but you think that they can predict what it will be like in a hundred years. I have some beachfront property in Arizona that I would like for you to consider purchasing.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
It is a pleasant change to see the insurance industry take science seriously. The only thing that would be better is if US insurance companies could pressure the current anti-science administration to take this problem as seriously as the experts.
Hi Pat –
I have a good friend Pat with whom I\’ve shared the same phrase many a time – Pat, if that\’s you, shoot landshark an email
Your use of the phrase Kool-Aid (and the implied oblique reference to the Jonestown tragedy) are welcome, but I ask you to consider carefully what you\’re saying – it may not me me that\’s got a mug full.
Science is supposed to be about discourse and argument. It\’s supposed to be about making decisions based on information gained from the results of experimentation (experimentation that can be repeated, with similar results). Too often in our society, those goals get subordinated to political agendas. It may be the political agenda of the corporations (usually attributed to \”the Right\”) is doing the subordinating. But equally possible is that the political agenda of \”the Left\” is doing the subordinating. My suggestion is that rather than simply accepting one view, that global warming caused by CO2 emissions is going to crush the planet, we continually challenge what we know, and accept that the potential for global warming, and our impact on it, needs more research. There\’s still a lot of work that needs to be done before we divert resources from improving people\’s lives to preventing what may or may not be a calamity.
Our history as a species is replete with examples of how, with the best of intentions, we have changed or interfered with nature to our peril. The ban on DDT is a good example – for a questionable gain in human propsperity, we have doomed literally millions to death in Africa: malaria has gone from being almost eradicated to killing millions each year dueto malaria. I for one would like to make sure we have the science straight before we commit a similar error.
I invite discussion rather than try to stifle it – personally, I think that\’s a better solution than going off half-cocked. You may diagree.
Not this liberal, un-scientific bull@#$% again.
Yeah patrick, I\’m sure you are much smarter then those scientists at NCAR.
Dave, This is agenda driven science, pure and simple. Give me an objective and meaningful scientific study and I\’m on board with you-otherwise, quit the Euro-whiny \”America is the bad guy and ruining the world and heating up the planet and causing all the suffering…\” bull$#@& OK?
Hey genius, what caused global temps to rise 133,000 years ago? Only a dope would belive that humans can affect the temperature of the planet, and only a democrat dope would try to shoehorn Bush into the argument.
Mt. Pinatubo put more garbage and \”greenhouse gasses\” into the atmosphere in one eruption than all human activity in history, and the world didn\’t come to an end. The world will only come to an end if Al Gore ever gets elected president.
If President Bush is \”anti-science\” for not caving into the Red/Green b@*$#&#t then so be it.
I\’m glad to see research continues, but I wish there were more emphasis on understanding the impacts using methods other than \”models\”, which, however \”powerful\” (as this author writes), are notoriously prone to assumption bias. I\’m not going to slam this article quite as hard as Dave does, but I do express caution and skepticism about this report, and question if the methods used really provide a lot of evidence supporting the global warming theory.
The world is beoming increasingly full of well-intentioned people with bad information, and that\’s a dangerous combination. Science relies on us continuing to approach theories with healthy skepticism, and I\’m worried that skepticism is being drowned in a sea of voices crying out warnings based on incomplete research.
For an excellent piece of fiction that will really make you think, check out Michael Crichton\’s latest book, State of Fear, and his essay, here:
http://www.crichton-official.com/fear/index.html
actually the estimate for sea level rise given in the article are quite conservative and will likely prove to underestimate by a substantial margin what will happen. Current estimates rely too heavity on the assumption that increased deposition of water vapor will off set ice edge margin melting in the polar ice sheets. From everything I can discern we are in for greatest challenge as a species. Simply one can not release this gas here. Doing so will quickly change this into a different world.
All the airports in the world will have to change their base altimiter readings
The Arctic ice cap is thicker now than it was ten years ago.
Human activity does not contribute to global warming. What caused previous warming and cooling trends like the beginning and ending of ice ages?!?!? If the sun\’s temperature goes up or down by a few degrees it could result in an ice age or a warming trend, but we can do literally nothing to conpare with that, or with volcanic activity.
They can\’t even predict what the weather will be like next month, but you think that they can predict what it will be like in a hundred years. I have some beachfront property in Arizona that I would like for you to consider purchasing.